MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013069666 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20529

Application of Monte‐Carlo simulation to estimate the kinetic parameters for pyrolysis—Part I

2011· article· en· W2013069666 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Priyanka Kaushal, Jalal Abedi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates Bio Solutions
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodRobustness (evolution)PyrolysisExperimental dataKinetic energyKinetic Monte CarloComputer scienceData setApplied mathematicsComputer simulationSet (abstract data type)AlgorithmStatistical physicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsSimulationChemistryStatisticsEngineeringPhysicsChemical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A mathematical model was developed to represent pyrolysis. The components of primary and secondary pyrolysis reactions were simply lump into different groups and were represented through a set of pseudo‐first‐order reactions. This study presents an algorithm to estimate the kinetic parameters using Monte‐Carlo (MC) simulation. The combination of an analytical reaction model and the MC simulation technique rapidly generates a large number of numerical values. Results show that MC‐simulated data and experimental data are in fair agreement. Though the technique developed in this study proved to have potential, more experimental data are needed to check the robustness of the model. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207